LG Patent Lawsuit Backfires, As It Ends Up On The Hook For Infringement

from the nuclear-war dept

We've seen this happen quite a few times: when a company files a patent infringement lawsuit against another operating company, patent nuclear war breaks out, with the sued coming turning around suing the original company back for patent infringement. These sorts of "mutually assured destruction" scenarios are often what keep big patent battles in check. But, in this latest case, sent in by a bunch of you, it looks like the first strike completely failed, while the retaliation hit hard. It started with LG filing a lawsuit against AU Optronics (AUO), claiming patent infringement. AUO, in turn, sued LG for patent infringement of its own patents. The end result? The court found that LG infringed on AUO's patents, but AUO did not infringe on LG's patents. Perhaps LG will be a bit more careful before filing patent lawsuits in the future. Now AUO is seeking an injunction against LG's displays, and LG will likely have to pay out a substantial sum to AUO.

Re:

Re:

Consumers can wait 17-20 years for the patents to expire. Or they can buy second hand. Or they can buy from someone other than LG. Patents and attorneys fees are part of the cost of buying tech. Just as taxes on businesses impact the cost of what they are selling. Advertising, etc.

You already pay 30-80% [margin] more than the company paid to make it.

Consumers ultimately have the upper hand. They ultimately will pay or not pay for a product. It amazes me that people still buy Sony, however. I guess rootkits don't matter to Joe Buying Public.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"Consumers ultimately have the upper hand."

But companies have charts and graphs showing the cut off lines that consumers will and will not pay. and monopolies and attorney fees will invariably end up costing consumers more. Just because the consumer can choose not to buy doesn't make it right to overcharge them and monopolize the market.

Re: the real loss...

You know what I don't understand. I don't understand how a patent troll can sue for patent infringement. If you are a non practicing entity how can you claim damages? What damages can you claim? You're not selling anything. I know in this case there are no patent trolls involved, but I'm just referring to the cases where patent trolls do sue.